On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On mån, 2011-09-26 at 13:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The thing that makes me doubt that is this comment from Tatsuo Ishii:
>>
>> TI> COPY explicitly specifies the encoding (to be UTF-8 in this case).
>> So
>> TI> I think we should not regard U+FEFF as "BOM" in COPY, rather we
>> should
>> TI> regard U+FEFF as "ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE".
>>
>> If a BOM is confusable with valid data, then I think recognizing it
>> and discarding it unconditionally is no good - you could end up where
>> COPY OUT, TRUNCATE, COPY IN changes the table contents.
>
> We did recently accept a patch for psql -f to skip over a UTF-8
> byte-order mark. We had a lot of this same discussion there.
But that case is different, because zero-width, non-breaking space has
no particular meaning in an SQL script - it's either going to be
ignored as a BOM, ignored as whitespace, or an error. But inside a
file being subjected to COPY it might be confusable with data that the
user wanted to end up in some table.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
